For most of my life, I’ve been a baseball fan. Some may say it’s because I played the game in very competitive leagues from ages 9 through 18 . Some will think it’s because I also played softball during all my years in the military, and that’s kind of like baseball, isn’t it?
I simply translated my love of pitching and defense to a medium where the focus is truly on the hitter. I saw some terrific things during my lifetime: the timeless Nolan Ryan and several of his no hitters; Cal Ripken breaking a longevity record that truly astounds in that it brought up all the longevity records from other workaday people who never miss a shift; the simple joy of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chasing a dream home run season (later ruined amid rampant discussions of steroids); the Red Sox breaking their futility and winning not only one but two World Series. I fell in love with the game with that first solid ping of aluminum against leather. It’s a solid feeling that you feel in your guts that can’t be otherwise described. But beyond that, I love baseball for history.
There is a certain timeless quality to it. Small changes to the rules happen each and every year. Pitchers’ mounds get raised and lowered according to the public’s demands for offense. We saw the “dead ball” era when hitters simply seemed too good. The public demanded bigger! better! faster! more! Baseball responded with it’s “juiced era” that eventually ended amid Congressional investigations, shame, and the questioning of some standards that are held most dear. But the only reason all of this happened is because baseball has rumbled along virtually unchanged for a century or better.
When measuring the worth of a career, you have hitstory as a measuring point. Is Albert Pujols or A-Rod a superior player to Honus Wagner or Ty Cobb? The answer can only be yes and no. There is no way to replicate the conditions for either. Would A-Rod be as good playing for a steel mill team? Did Ty Cobb ever have a trainer? A nutritionist? Video analysis of his every at bat? It’s always a yes and a resounding no.
The appreciation of the timeless quality of baseball has served me well in my profession. (By the way, the collective sigh you just heard is from the mighty dozen of my readers who just realized I’ve come to my point). Cooking is, and has always been, timeless. It should remain that way forever.
Now it would be easy for me to elaborate on time lingered over a pot roast served by my grandmother that had the taste and texture of a damp wool blanket or to revel in the sheer genius of her mashed potatoes and gravy at the very same meal. I can’t enliven your lives with stories of learning how to cook Sunday dinner at Gram’s apron strings since we’re talking about a woman whose oven knew two settings, 450 and off. I won’t bore you with the story of the first time I truly tasted a raw oyster, and I mean truly tasted, where eating them for the gross out factor of others around me became a segue into a world of levels of salinity and melon/cucumber/clean aftertaste. It goes beyond anything in my experience and speaks more to the collective experience of all my Cheffly brethren. Pirates to be sure, but also slaves to and students of history.
Take a look at any great chef. And I do mean ANY great chef. Whether you’re looking at an uber-traditionist, fusion dude, retro throwback guy, fanatical classicist, or a molecular gastronomy mad scientist, they all have one thing in common: they know and appreciate solid, simple, cuisine. You can’t manipulate anything without knowing it’s nature. Same goes with people, but human fallibility makes us a much easier target. I’ve never met a vain squash or an insecure eggplant. Well, maybe a small Japanese eggplant could have some size “issues,” but they could argue they had all the taste in a smaller more efficient size. However, this is hardly the point.
During my recent trails and tribulations on the road to find a new culinary home, I’ve stayed in a lot of hotels. Some were spectacular; others made me wonder how in the hell a hotel got stuck in precisely that location (hello, city in Southern Ohio!). The one remarkable thing about all these different properties is how differently their menus are written, executed, and the bizarre nature of the names assigned to their various and sundry offerings. One such menu offended me so much that I wrote a three-page critique on it and gave it to the GM. Understandably, this was not the best of career moves as the critique also included a fair share of sarcasm and snarky comments. Seems I don’t have much of a filter.
Lesson #14, boys and girls: Great sarcastic comedy will seldom get you hired. But I digress…
Before you call me a knucklehead (as my mentor did…repeatedly), please know I stand by every criticism I leveled. I’m not the enemy of invention. If Ferran Adria wants me to realize the essence of thinly shaved and glorious serrano ham as it meets the juicy sweetness of a piece of summer melon by putting me in virtual reality goggles and a space helmet filled with melon scent, who am I to complain? If Grant Aschatz wants me to experience chicken piccatta by tasting a picatta flavored breath strip, I’m all for it. I’m stopping on the way home to actually eat, but I’m all for it. The thing about both experiences is that they both understand what the individual experiences are about. The sweet, salty rush. The feel of butter on your tongue. They understand the history. Hotel “X” didn’t get it.
As a man of considerable girth, I love eggs Benedict. The combination simply sings in a chorus that when done well makes the hairs on your arm stand on end. I also happen to like the variations: Eastern shore Benedict, which replaces the Canadian bacon with crabcakes; anything with a chipotle hollandaise named “Rancho” this or “Santa” that. One thing about Hotel “X” I found offensive was a combination of English muffin, Canadian bacon, poached eggs, and hollandaise sauce was named a California Benedict. Well, huh…how could the rest of the country and I have been so mistaken? Since the name was “California,” was I wrong to expect a lighter variation? Some sort of twist? Couldn’t you have at least thrown me an avocado into the mix (which seems to fit the definition of “California” cuisine to the rest of the country)? Can you do that, Sparky? Nope. Nada. Zip.
Hotel “X” also had a sandwich on the menu called a “Dip It,” which was thinly sliced roast beef and sautéed onions on a hard roll, with a side of Au Jus that the sandwich could be dipped in before each bite. Now call me a snob; call me overly critical; just don’t call me Shirley (sorry…not the time for an Airplane reference). If you are even the slightest student of the world of the sandwich, doesn’t that sound like a French Dip? The very same French Dip rumored to have been invented in, oh I don’t know, say, California!!? Was my critique valid? Yes! Was it particularly smart? Well…no. But what do you expect from someone so sarcastic?
They say those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I can honestly say I certainly hope so. Great food has always been great food. Create! Invent! But always remember that classics are called “classics” for a reason. Just think, in 20 years, this blog will still exist and still be an appreciation of all those great chefs who came before me and after me. And I will still be, and always remain, a knucklehead. Comforting isn’t it?